OPINION

The United States of America – The framers of our Constitution weren’t building a pure democracy; they were building a balancing act. And they knew exactly what they were doing.

The original Constitution divided political power among different interests. The People elected the House of Representatives. State legislatures selected Senators. The Executive branch was headed by a President chosen through the Electoral College. Everybody had skin in the game. Everybody had a seat at the table. And nobody got all the power.

That arrangement wasn’t some accident buried in old parchment. It was deliberate.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution plainly stated that senators would be “chosen by the Legislature” of each state. According to James Madison in Federalist No. 62, appointment by state legislatures was designed to create a direct connection between the states and the federal government. He wrote that this method would “form a convenient link between the two systems.” The Senate was never intended to represent the passions of the public. The House already did that. The Senate represented the states themselves.

And that’s because the United States was formed by sovereign states entering into a union, not by Washington handing power down from on high.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates spent weeks fighting over representation. Large states wanted population-based representation. Smaller states feared being steamrolled. The eventual Connecticut Compromise created two chambers, one representing the People and one representing the States. It was a compromise that helped save the convention from collapse. Benjamin Franklin himself urged concessions to preserve the union.

Madison argued repeatedly that the Senate’s structure would act as a stabilizing force. The upper chamber would provide experience and continuity while insulating the country from sudden swings in public opinion. The U.S. Senate’s own historical records note that senators were intentionally made older and selected by state legislatures to provide stability and restraint.

Then came 1913.

The Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally changed the arrangement by transferring the election of senators from state legislatures to popular vote. Supporters argued it would reduce corruption and legislative deadlocks. It certainly changed things, but it also removed the states themselves from direct representation in Washington. The National Constitution Center describes the amendment as the only major constitutional change affecting the structure of Congress since the Bill of Rights.

Since then, senators have become national politicians rather than ambassadors of their state governments. Their incentives changed. Governors and legislatures may protest federal mandates, but their senators often answer first to national donors, party leadership and television cameras.

That’s a very different system than the one the founders designed.

State governments today have no institutional voice inside Congress. They sue Washington. They lobby Washington. They beg Washington. But they no longer possess representation within Washington itself, which is exactly what the original Senate provided.

Supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment point to corruption scandals that occurred before 1913. Those problems were real. But replacing one flaw with another doesn’t necessarily count as progress, history is full of reforms that created new problems while solving old ones.

The Constitution was built on competing interests checking one another. The House represented the people. The Senate represented the states. The president represented the nation as a whole. It wasn’t complicated.

We’ve drifted far from that arrangement.

Today Washington treats states less like partners and more like administrative districts. Federal agencies dictate policy, Congress spends borrowed money with abandon, and senators spend more time chasing campaign cash than defending state sovereignty.

Maybe the old system wasn’t perfect. Nothing designed by human beings ever is. But the framers understood something modern politicians often forget… Power needs rivals.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment wouldn’t weaken democracy. It would restore federalism. It would give state governments a genuine stake in the game again and force Washington to remember that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.

We shouldn’t expect the people who benefit from the current arrangement to voluntarily surrender power. Congress is not likely to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, and senators certainly aren’t inclined to vote themselves out of their present status. The framers anticipated moments like this.

That’s why Article V of the Constitution gives the states another path, a convention for proposing amendments called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. If Americans truly want to restore federalism and return the states to their rightful place in the constitutional order, the answer probably won’t come from Washington. It’ll have to come from the states themselves, from the People. The people created the states, the states created the federal government, and sometimes it’s necessary to remind Washington who’s really supposed to be in charge.

For those who believe the time has come to restore the constitutional balance our founders envisioned, organizations like Convention of States Action are already leading the fight. Visit https://conventionofstates.com/, get informed, and get involved, because Washington isn’t going to limit itself unless the states and the people demand it.

Sources: Article I of the Constitution, James Madison’s Federalist No. 62, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, and historical material from the U.S. Senate and Library of Congress.

FATE, TX – Voters in Fate may soon face a familiar name on the ballot, but beneath the surface of Allen Robbins’ political comeback lies a record that could reshape how residents view his return. As the May 2026 city council election approaches, Robbins, a former Fate councilman, is seeking another term, bringing with him a documented voting history that raises pointed questions about taxes, fees, and development decisions that directly affected residents’ wallets and the city’s character.

Public records from the City of Fate show that during his previous tenure, Robbins not only introduced a series of consequential motions, but in each instance, those motions ultimately passed the council. The result was a slate of enacted policies that increased costs and advanced higher-density development, leaving a clear legislative footprint for voters to evaluate.

Below are seven key actions tied to Robbins’ record that voters may weigh as they consider his candidacy.

1. Ratifying a Property Tax Increase

Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-036, ratifying a property tax increase embedded in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2023–2024. The motion passed, formally locking in the increased tax burden tied to that budget cycle.

2. Supporting a 5.96 Percent Tax Rate Increase

Robbins also made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 0-2023-037, setting the property tax rate at $0.26421, an effective increase of approximately 5.96 percent. The council approved the measure, resulting in a higher rate applied to property owners across the city.

3. Approving Increased Solid Waste Fees

Through Ordinance No. O-2023-038, Robbins moved to approve updated rates for solid waste and refuse collection services. The motion passed, leading to increased service charges for residents.

4. Road Fee Adoption

Although introduced by another council member, Robbins voted to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-039, establishing a $3 road fee for both single-family and multi-family residential units. The measure adds a recurring fee impacting nearly all households.

5. Zoning Change with Financial Penalties

Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. O-2023-021, which amended zoning classifications on approximately 3.18 acres from Mixed Use to Mixed Use Transition for a Townhouse Development.

6. Approval of a 179-Unit Townhome Development

Through Resolution No. R-2023-055, Robbins moved to approve a Type III development plan for a 179-unit townhome project on approximately 13.9 acres. The council approved the motion, clearing the way for the higher-density development to proceed.

7. Advancing a Maximum Tax Rate Above Key Thresholds

Robbins also made the motion to approve Resolution No. R-2023-058, setting a maximum tax rate that exceeded both the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval rate, within the de minimis threshold allowed under Texas law. The motion passed, advancing the process for adopting the higher rate and triggering required public notices and hearings.

Context and Verification

Each of these actions is documented in official City of Fate council records from 2023. Motions made by a council member are a critical procedural step in municipal governance, and in these cases, each motion successfully resulted in council approval, meaning the policies were not merely proposed, but enacted.

Municipal leaders often justify such decisions as necessary responses to growth, infrastructure demands, and service costs. Fate, like many North Texas communities, has experienced rapid expansion, increasing pressure on roads, utilities, and public services.

The Stakes in 2026

As Robbins seeks a return to office in May 2026, voters are presented with a clear and verifiable record of policy actions that translated into tangible outcomes, higher taxes, new fees, and expanded development density.

Whether those outcomes are viewed as responsible governance or excessive government expansion will likely shape the election.

Opinion: A Pattern, Not an Accident

Seven motions. Seven approvals. One consistent direction.

That pattern is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Robbins’ record reflects a governing philosophy that leans toward increasing revenue through taxation and fees while accommodating denser residential growth.

Supporters may argue these were necessary decisions in a growing city. That is a fair argument. Growth requires infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.

But voters should also ask whether every increase was necessary, whether alternatives were explored, and whether the cumulative impact on residents was fully considered.

Because while each individual vote might be explained away, together they tell a broader story, one of a councilman comfortable with expanding both the cost and scope of local government.

In a community like Fate, where many families moved seeking affordability and space, that story carries weight.

And in May 2026, voters will decide whether it carries enough weight to keep Allen Robbins out of office, or return him to it.

Thune’s Dismissive Smear of Election Integrity Concerns Demands His Immediate Ouster

Opinion – Senate Majority Leader John Thune has revealed his utter contempt for the American electorate. Amid mounting pressure to advance the SAVE America Act—a straightforward bill requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship to safeguard federal elections—Thune shrugged off the grassroots outcry as nothing more than a “paid influencer ecosystem.”

This arrogant dismissal, captured in recent comments to reporters, isn’t just tone-deaf; it’s a betrayal of the millions of everyday Americans who demand secure elections as a cornerstone of our republic.

Thune’s remarks didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They came as conservatives, including President Trump and a chorus of activists, ramped up calls for the Senate to use procedural tools like a talking filibuster to force a vote on the SAVE Act.

The legislation, already passed by the House, addresses widespread fears of voter fraud by ensuring only citizens cast ballots—a measure supported by an overwhelming 80-90% of Americans across party lines, according to polls from Gallup, Rasmussen, and others. Yet Thune, ensconced in his leadership perch, waved it away, implying the push is manufactured by compensated online agitators rather than genuine civic concern.

As one critic aptly put it, this reduces the legitimate worries of voters to a “social media echo chamber,” ignoring the real-world efforts of poll watchers, state lawmakers, and ordinary citizens who’ve fought for transparency since the chaotic expansions of mail-in voting during the 2020 pandemic.

Let’s be clear: Thune’s words aren’t a mere slip; they’re a window into the soul of a career politician who’s lost touch with the base that elevated Republicans to Senate control. Public skepticism about election integrity isn’t fringe—it’s mainstream. Polls consistently show that a significant portion of voters, including independents and minorities, harbor doubts about the security of our processes, fueled by irregularities in battleground states and the rapid, unchecked changes implemented under the guise of COVID emergencies.

Organizations like the Election Integrity Network and grassroots groups have documented these issues through audits, lawsuits, and reform proposals, all driven by patriotism, not paychecks.

To smear these efforts as the work of “paid influencers” is not only insulting but dangerously divisive, echoing the elitist disdain that has alienated voters from the GOP establishment for years.

This isn’t Thune’s first rodeo in undermining conservative priorities. As the No. 2 Republican under Mitch McConnell, he previously downplayed candidates focused on 2020 election concerns, blaming them for midterm setbacks rather than addressing the underlying voter frustrations.

Now, as Majority Leader, he wields immense power over the legislative agenda, yet he’s dragging his feet on border security, spending reforms, and yes, election safeguards—issues that define the MAGA movement and the party’s platform. His reluctance to “bust the filibuster” or rally votes for the SAVE Act, despite a Republican majority, reeks of cowardice or worse: complicity in preserving a system that benefits the uniparty elite. Even Elon Musk has publicly questioned if Thune is “owned by someone,” a sentiment echoed across conservative networks.

The backlash has been swift and justified. Activists, commentators like Tomi Lahren, and everyday Americans on platforms like X have torched Thune for his arrogance, with calls to “vacate the chair” gaining traction. From podcasters decrying him as a “RINO on steroids” to voters labeling him a “damn liar,” the outrage underscores a deeper fracture: Senate Republicans are failing their base, and Thune is the poster child for this dysfunction.

Thune Must Go—Step Down or Be Vacated

John Thune’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader is a disgrace, a glaring example of how Washington insiders prioritize self-preservation over the will of the people. By belittling the fight for election integrity as a fabricated “ecosystem” of influencers, he has spit in the face of the 77 million-plus Trump voters and the broader conservative coalition that demands action, not excuses.

This isn’t leadership; it’s sabotage. In a constitutional republic, where the legitimacy of government rests on the consent of the governed, dismissing voter concerns as paid propaganda erodes the very foundation of our democracy. Thune isn’t just wrong—he’s unfit.

It’s time for Thune to face the music: Step down immediately and let a true conservative warrior take the reins. If he refuses, Senate Republicans must summon the spine to vacate the chair, just as House conservatives did to oust Kevin McCarthy when he failed to deliver.

Anything less is a capitulation to the swamp, allowing Democrats to block vital reforms while illegals potentially sway elections and fraud festers unchecked.

The American people aren’t “paid influencers”—we’re the bosses. And we’re done with traitorous enablers like Thune. Remove him now, or risk losing the Senate and the republic along with it. The clock is ticking, Republicans: Act, or be replaced.